Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Middlebrook v. Imler, Tenny & Kugler, M.D.'s, Inc.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided August 14, 1985No. 56179, 56180Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSummers, Justice

I must dissent from that portion of the opinion awarding Mylynda Kay Middle-brook $175,000 for loss of consortium. She elected not to testify in support of her claim. In Hinkle v. Horton1 the husband sued for loss of consortium. The only testimony before the jury was that of the injured wife. This court said:... [W]e find the evidence to be insufficient to support an award therefor. True, Mrs. Hinkle testified concerning changes in her sexual abilities subsequent to the wreck and a general reference to her inability to perform certain other activities. But such evidence never ripened into a…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Walker v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1982
  2. Hinkle v. HamptonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1972

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API